' RIAZAT ALI SAHAR, J.---Applicant Mst. Kareema widow of .Abdul Ghani has been involved in Crime No,60 of 2012 of Police Station Hatri Hyderabad for offence, punishable under section 302/34, F'. P. C
2. The allegation against the applicant is that on 2-3-2012 at 0200 hours, the deceased Mst.
Nafeesa was found in murdered position in her house 'without availability of any culprit. During course of investigation, applicant has been involved in the present case on the basis of further statement of complainant dated 27-3-2012 and confessional statement of co-accused Mureed dated 3-4-2012.
3. It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the name of the applicant does not transpire in the F.I.R.; no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant; no direct evidence is available on record against the applicant; she has been involved mere on the basis of further statement of complainant and confessional statement of co- accused Mureed, therefore, she is entitled for granting bail.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh recorded his no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail plea of the applicant and submitted that prima facie sufficient evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer against the applicant, therefore, she is not entitled to concession of bail.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. Learned D.P.G.
For the State and learned counsel for complainant and examined the record.
7. Admittedly, name of the applicant does not transpire in the F.I.R.; no incriminating article including crime weapon has been recovered from the possession of the applicant; she has been arrested on 1-4-2012 on the basis of further statement of complainant under section 161 read with section 162, Cr.P.C, but the statement does not show any proper source of information regarding involvement of applicant. So far the confessional statement of co- accused Mureed whereby he has implicated the applicant is concerned, same is hit by Article 43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. For the sake of convenience article 43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 is reproduced as under:-- "Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under the trial for same offence. When more persons than are being tried jointly ' for the same offence and a confession made by one of such persons is proved.
(a) such confession shall be proof against the persons; making it and;
(b) the Court may take into consideration such confession as circumstantial evidence against such other person In view of the above Article, confession made by co-accused Mureed whereby he implicated the applicant, has no evidentiary value in the case of applicant at this stage, it can be treated as circumstantial evidence at the time of trial. The case has been challaned and the applicant is no more required for further investigation to the police and his further detention will not yield any purpose. The case of the applicant requires further probe and consideration.
8. In view of the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the applicant has succeeded to make out her case for grant of bail. Accordingly, applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 (Two hundred thousands) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
9. Needless to say that the observation made hereinabove are' tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either party at the time of trial.